At 11:02 AM -0700 5/12/99, George Blaisdell wrote:
>>From: "Moon-Ryul Jung"
>
>> > >Thanks, Carl. Finally, Mark 3.1 makes sense to me.
>
>> > > HN EKEI ANQRWPOS EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA.
>
>> > >Based on the data you provided, I would render it as
>> > > "There was there a man with his hand withered". (a)
>
>>But George Blaisdell thinks EXHRAMMENHN is clearly
>>attributive.
>>His decisions would force him to render Mk 3.1 as
>>
>>" There was there a man having his withered hand."
>>
>>But this sounds akward. As long as we take THN CEIRA as THN hEAUTOU CEIRA,
>>I think there is NO WAY to take the participle EXHRAMMENHN as attributive.
>
>Moon ~
>
>The key phrase is EXHRAMMENHN ECWN THN CEIRA, where ECWN ties together
>EXHRHMMENHN and THN CEIRA. [Just as EXHRAMMENHN ties together what preceeds
>and follows it.]
>
>So that 'being withered the hand' or better, 'the hand being withered' would
>seem to slide easily into what might be called idiomatic attribution of
>possession, because of ECWN, a participle that clearly 'has' [possession],
>yes?
>
>The possesive ECWN idiomatically 'distributes' its force to what it ties
>together, giving us in English "Having his hand withered", rather than
>'having his withered hand.'
>
>The hand clearly has a very distinctive attribute, does it not? It is
>withered!! Hence EXHRAMMENHN is attributive of CIERA.
>
>Am I making any sense of this for you??

I will make my usual protest against the notion of "centrality of position"
as here applied--that any word automatically "ties together" what is on
either side of it. ECWN doesn't make EXHRAMMENHN attributive. When the noun
has an article, the attribute must also have an article to be attributive.